[Standards] SASL protocol errors reporting

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jul 26 07:16:47 UTC 2007

Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> Dnia 25-07-2007, śro o godzinie 09:32 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre
> napisał(a):
>> We have a malformed-request error here:
>> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-03.html#sasl-errors-malformed-request 
> My concern is that we do not have it here:
> http://www.xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3920.html#rfc.section.6.4
> So if I do report malformed-request error, my implementation will be no
> longer RFC3920 compliant.

Correct. You would no longer be compliant with RFC 3920. Instead, you
would be compliant with rfc3920bis, which (compared to RFC 3920)
incorporates errata, corrections, best practices learned from 3+ years
of implementation experience, and modifications to track specifications
on which XMPP depends. RFC 3920 referred to RFC 2222, whereas rfc3920bis
refers to RFC 4422. Both RFC 2222 and RFC 4422 define SASL, but RFC 4422
is the most up-to-date definition of SASL, since it too incorporates
errata and corrections and so on. RFC 4422 talks about malformed
requests. RFC 2222 did not. Therefore in rfc3920bis we have added a way
to properly handle malformed SASL requests. Naturally, no one is forcing
you to comply with rfc3920bis. You can do that now, you can wait until
rfc3920bis is approved by the IESG, you can wait until it is published
with a nice new number by the RFC Editor, you can ignore RFC 3920
forever. The choice is yours.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070726/814c5636/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list